MEMBERS MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. CHAIRPERSON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER
PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS JASON M. TURKISH
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (By Consent)
Case No. 21-58-GA Notice Issued: March 2, 2022 Bruce R. Redman, P 46958, Lake Orion, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #76
Suspension - 30 Days, Effective March 2, 2022 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission to the factual statements and his admission that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in proceedings relating to the client’s bankruptcy and the judicial foreclosure of the client’s home and when he engaged in a real-estate deal with the same client that was a conflict of interest, and that resulted in litigation during which respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and failed to sufficiently explain the matter to his client, as charged in Count One of the complaint. The parties agreed to dismiss all other factual statements and allegations of misconduct not admitted in their stipulation, including Count Two in its entirety.
Based on respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); and engaged in a conflict of interest/prohibited transaction, in violation of MRPC 1.8(a). The panel also found that respondent violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $808.52.